Political Crossfire Forums

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

mattwa33193 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.
So are those in a coma not alive? If someone has the misfortune to be in an accident that temporarily impairs brain/neurological function, should their organs be harvested and used in transplant surgeries?

A person who is temporarily impaired still has a functioning neurosystem - it just isn't functioning properly. A fetus doesn't have one at all during the period where abortion is currently legal.

The fetus indeed does have a neurosystem. But like a wiring scheme not all of the connections have been made.

So then it is as temporary as is the impaired person, in fact we know with certainty within a very specific timeframe when the fetus's neurosystem will gain full functionality. We DO NOT know with any certainty when or even if the impaired person will gain full functionality. Yet where there is certainty of full functionality we GUARENTEE the termination of a life, where return to full functionality is unknown and in many cases hopeless we provide all the extraordinary methods to protect the life.

You find NO irony in that?

There is no neurosystem at conception. There is no neurosystem in an embryo. The neurosystem is not functional at all until about the 14th week. And I fully support not allowing abortions past the first trimester except for extreme circumstances.

There are no guarantees. Women miscarry all the time - stats are very unreliable because most go unreported.

I guess I think there is a significant difference between saying there is "NO" sytem vs. saying that the system is developming. There certainly is from the beginning a system in development.

"Neural development is one of the earliest to begin and the last to be complete, generating the most complex structure within the embryo."

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/neuron.htm

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. It doesn't matter what stage the developing human life is in. Its still a human life worth protecting. You can not point out any trait the young human is missing froma fully grown adult and suggest it justifies the murder of that human. This is the equivalent of killing handicapped people.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

gilbert wrote: Yet where there is certainty of full functionality we GUARENTEE the termination of a life, where return to full functionality is unknown and in many cases hopeless we provide all the extraordinary methods to protect the life.

You find NO irony in that?
Even in those "hopeless" cases, those people can be kept alive without forcibly infringing themselves upon others. It would be a bit ironic if we kept these people alive by attatching them to a woman with an umbilical cord but kept abortion legal, but we don't. We keep them alive with machines and other resources not forcibly extracted from any individuals, unlike pregnancy.

That said, if we were forced to provide something to save others' lives (donate blood, for example), I'd certainly be open to it. Though forcing women to endure pregnancy to keep a person alive may be a bit far; I'm rather ambiguous.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Ive said it before and Ill say it again. It doesn't matter what stage the developing human life is in. Its still a human life worth protecting. You can not point out any trait the young human is missing froma fully grown adult and suggest it justifies the murder of that human. This is the equivalent of killing handicapped people.
Disabled people still think and feel and have emotions just the same as any other person. A preborn human does not, until a point. Your analogy is not valid.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

The analogy is completely valid. It's only a matter of degree to which both the handicapped and fetus lack a certain trait, which happens to be in this case mental capability. The point stands, you are judging a human life to be inferior and in fact subhuman, unworthy of human rights just because it hasn't reached a certain stage of development. Conception can not be ignored as the beginning of a humans life. Once that life has began, who are you to judge it as some worthless object to be destroyed for convenience sake? How can you say it is not equal to the murder of an adult? It is a human life, just sooooo young you aren't willing to recognize it as such in order to protect your sexual freedom. It is a barbaric practice and should be left in those ages.

mattwa33193 · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Miami

AllAmericanMan wrote: The analogy is completely valid. It's only a matter of degree to which both the handicapped and fetus lack a certain trait, which happens to be in this case mental capability. The point stands, you are judging a human life to be inferior and in fact subhuman, unworthy of human rights just because it hasn't reached a certain stage of development. Conception can not be ignored as the beginning of a humans life. Once that life has began, who are you to judge it as some worthless object to be destroyed for convenience sake? How can you say it is not equal to the murder of an adult? It is a human life, just sooooo young you aren't willing to recognize it as such in order to protect your sexual freedom. It is a barbaric practice and should be left in those ages.

I've said it before, I'll say it again

An embryo is to a human as an acorn is to an oak tree or a lump of coal is to a diamond.

An embryo is a group of cells with the potential to become human. It is not human yet. It is not sentient.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: An embryo is a group of cells with the potential to become human. It is not human yet. It is not sentient. No a fertilized embryo is the start of a human beings existence. From there it will grow or not on its own inside the mother. It isn't a potential anything, he or she are merely in their first stages of development. A sperm and an egg by themselves are just a group of cells. When put together they create offspring.

The embryo will develop into a sentient adult in time but time does not change the basis of what the life is. It is a human being. The act of sexual reproduction is what changes something from a group of cells into a new individual. The consequence of conception is when this new life begins. What you are saying is it lacks a quality, the ability to think. Quality of life is irrelevant, the issue is quantity. The life is +1 and to subtract from that is murder and should be illegal. When a human being develops into a thinking adult, there is no magical moment when it becomes human. It was human all along, just underdeveloped (young) and the dehumanizing logic you use is comparable to that of the Nazis.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

It takes time to grow neural pathways. While these are growing, are you going to pinpoint the time this person magically becomes human? That would be rather stupid because they dont stop developing until about 20 years later.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: It is not sentient nor is a brain dead person.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

The repeated attempts to point out how inferior the newly created life is are futile. Sentient or not it does not matter. These are just traits the person will gain with time. Doesnt make it subhuman, just young.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: The analogy is completely valid. It's only a matter of degree to which both the handicapped and fetus lack a certain trait, which happens to be in this case mental capability. The point stands, you are judging a human life to be inferior and in fact subhuman, unworthy of human rights just because it hasn't reached a certain stage of development. FALSE. We are merely pointiong out that the woman has more rights.

Quote: Conception can not be ignored as the beginning of a humans life. Rather, it is a step in the process.

Quote: Once that life has began, who are you to judge it as some worthless object to be destroyed for convenience sake? Nobody are to make such judgement, except the woamn herself. SO no, nobody here have the right to decide, and that includes you.

Quote: How can you say it is not equal to the murder of an adult? because it isn't. It isn't murdr, your deceptive falsehood none withstanding.

Quote: It is a human life, It is life of human origin. You haven't shown anything else.

Quote: just sooooo young you aren't willing to recognize it as such in order to protect your sexual freedom. It is a barbaric practice and should be left in those ages. And yet you advocate for the enslavement of women. What a hypocrite you are.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: An embryo is a group of cells with the potential to become human. It is not human yet. It is not sentient. No a fertilized embryo is the start of a human beings existence. There is no "being" without individual existence, which doesn't begin until birth.

Quote: From there it will grow or not on its own inside the mother. An outright lie, as it has no growth without input from the woman's body.

Quote: It isn't a potential anything, he or she are merely in their first stages of development. A sperm and an egg by themselves are just a group of cells. With the same potential as what they can become 9 months after merging.

Quote: When put together they create offspring. There is no offspring until the actual "springing off," namely at birth.

Quote: The embryo will develop into a sentient adult in time but time does not change the basis of what the life is. It is a human being. nope.

Quote: The act of sexual reproduction is what changes something from a group of cells into a new individual. more nonsense. there is no individual until birth.

Quote: The consequence of conception is when this new life begins. What you are saying is it lacks a quality, the ability to think. Quality of life is irrelevant, the issue is quantity. no, that is also irrelevant. the only thing that matters is that the woman has the right to decide whether her bodily resources are to be used or not.

Quote: The life is +1 and to subtract from that is murder and should be illegal. Another lie, as murder in no way is what you so deceptively and lyingly describes. It is very sad that you just NEVER can be honest in your posts and always must lie that much.

[quote]When a human being develops into a thinking adult, there is no magical moment when it becomes human.[/quote[]but there is a time whan it becomes a "being," namely at birth.

Quote: It was human all along, Sure. Nobody have denied the speciation relationship.

Quote: just underdeveloped (young) and the dehumanizing logic you use is comparable to that of the Nazis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: Quote: It is not sentient nor is a brain dead person. Well, it of course is not a person until birth :roll:

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: FALSE. We are merely pointiong out that the woman has more rights. How can the woman have more rights if the child inside her isnt subhuman? Were all created equal arent we?

Quote: Rather, it is a step in the process.
It is a step in the process of reproduction if you include the act of sex. It is the first step and the beginning of a new being's development. At this point it is now a developing human life.

Quote: Nobody are to make such judgement, except the woamn herself. SO no, nobody here have the right to decide, and that includes you.
Thats what this whole debate is about. Should woman have the right to murder their unborn babies?

Quote: because it isn't. It isn't murdr, your deceptive falsehood none withstanding.
It would be murder though if it were illegal, again thats what this debate is about.

Quote: It is life of human origin. You haven't shown anything else.
A life of human origin that given time could continue growing into a fully grown adult. I dont need to show anything you didnt just say.

Quote: And yet you advocate for the enslavement of women. What a hypocrite you are. I advocate personal responsibility. I advocate for respect of all life including the unborn. Your post is backwards. You accuse me of lieing then do all the lieing yourself.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: An outright lie, as it has no growth without input from the woman's body Are you saying the woman can tell it to go away?

Quote: There is no offspring until the actual "springing off," namely at birth Oh ya thats right, babies are delivered by stork and appear magically at birth.

Quote: nope.
No defense stated.

Quote: more nonsense. there is no individual until birth.
No support for claim.

Quote: no, that is also irrelevant. the only thing that matters is that the woman has the right to decide whether her bodily resources are to be used or not.
The woman chose to engage in sexual intercourse and most likely is aware of the natural purpose for this behavior.

Quote: Another lie, as murder in no way is what you so deceptively and lyingly describes. It is very sad that you just NEVER can be honest in your posts and always must lie that much.
No support given.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: FALSE. We are merely pointing out that the woman has more rights. How can the woman have more rights if the child inside her isnt subhuman? Were all created equal arent we? We don't have the same right to a person's bodily resources. other than the person themselves, nobody have the right to those resources. Your argument doesn't make sense.

Quote: Quote: Rather, it is a step in the process.
It is a step in the process of reproduction if you include the act of sex. It is the first step and the beginning of a new being's development. False.

Quote: At this point it is now a developing human life. It is human, it is life, and it develops, yes. So what?

Quote: Quote: Nobody are to make such judgement, except the woamn herself. SO no, nobody here have the right to decide, and that includes you. Thats what this whole debate is about. Should woman have the right to murder their unborn babies? more lies, as there is no evidence of any murder, your incessant lies none withstanding.

Quote: because it isn't. It isn't murder, your deceptive falsehood none withstanding. It would be murder though if it were illegal, again thats what this debate is about.[/quote]Ah, THAT might be true, but it is not right now murder, never mind how much you claim so in your never ending lies. And no, you can not get to the point of abortion being illegal until you cancel a person's right to control their own bodily resources, so that IS the actual question.

Quote: Quote: It is life of human origin. You haven't shown anything else.
A life of human origin that given time could continue growing into a fully grown adult. Sure. But that wasn't what you were saying.

Quote: I dont need to show anything you didnt just say. Huh? You need to show the reasoning for whatever claims you actually make.

Quote: Quote: And yet you advocate for the enslavement of women. What a hypocrite you are. I advocate personal responsibility. Another lie, or you would also object to treatment for lung cancer, traffic accidents etc.

Quote: I advocate for respect of all life including the unborn. ANOTHER LIE, as you have no respect for the life that is the sentient, sensate woman.

Quote: Your post is backwards. You accuse me of lieing then do all the lieing yourself. Your many and never-ending lies are clearly documented and you have made no refutation when you are called on your many lies.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: An outright lie, as it has no growth without input from the woman's body Are you saying the woman can tell it to go away? That is exactly what she does through an abortion.

Quote: Quote: There is no offspring until the actual "springing off," namely at birth Oh ya thats right, babies are delivered by stork and appear magically at birth. The issue was your use of the word "offspring. That you now start blabbering nonsense rather than standing by your word, that is your cowardliness and not my problem.

Quote: Quote: more nonsense. there is no individual until birth.
No support for claim. No support for your claim either. As long as you insist ion lying, there is no point in me trying to do anything more than merely point out your lies. There is no rational or meaningful debate with a liar like you, and as such, there is no purpose in me trying to expend any effort in documenting anything that you will just lie about anyway.

Quote: Quote: no, that is also irrelevant. the only thing that matters is that the woman has the right to decide whether her bodily resources are to be used or not. The woman chose to engage in sexual intercourse and most likely is aware of the natural purpose for this behavior. Like the natural consequence of smoking is lung cancer. And we treat unwanted lung cancer just like we treat unwanted pregnancy , through medical intervention to remove the unwanted tissue.

Quote: Quote: Another lie, as murder in no way is what you so deceptively and lyingly describes. It is very sad that you just NEVER can be honest in your posts and always must lie that much. No support given. More lies, as it certainly has been documented that "murder" is by definition an illegal act.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Have had enough of ya Steen. All ya do is call me a liar I see no reason to procede.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Have had enough of ya Steen. All ya do is call me a liar I see no reason to procede. There is no reason for anything else as long as you insist on lying.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Just because an opinion goes against a court ruling does not make it a lie.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

Prole wrote: gilbert wrote: Yet where there is certainty of full functionality we GUARENTEE the termination of a life, where return to full functionality is unknown and in many cases hopeless we provide all the extraordinary methods to protect the life.

You find NO irony in that?
Even in those "hopeless" cases, those people can be kept alive without forcibly infringing themselves upon others. It would be a bit ironic if we kept these people alive by attatching them to a woman with an umbilical cord but kept abortion legal, but we don't. We keep them alive with machines and other resources not forcibly extracted from any individuals, unlike pregnancy.

That said, if we were forced to provide something to save others' lives (donate blood, for example), I'd certainly be open to it. Though forcing women to endure pregnancy to keep a person alive may be a bit far; I'm rather ambiguous.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Ive said it before and Ill say it again. It doesn't matter what stage the developing human life is in. Its still a human life worth protecting. You can not point out any trait the young human is missing froma fully grown adult and suggest it justifies the murder of that human. This is the equivalent of killing handicapped people.
Disabled people still think and feel and have emotions just the same as any other person. A preborn human does not, until a point. Your analogy is not valid.

The analogy dealt with the temporary nature of the condition, in that regard it was perfectly valid.

You are imposing your VALUE argument which was not a part of the question. You can apply that argument when ever you want and declare victory.